Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35278112›Full record

SynthesisLangenbeck's archives of surgery2022

Learning curves in minimally invasive pancreatic surgery: a systematic review.

Gayle Fung, Menazir Sha, Basir Kunduzi, Farid Froghi, Saad Rehman, Saied Froghi

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Langenbeck's archives of surgery, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 29 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
29citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

29 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Observational
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Gayle FungBarts and The London School of Medicine and Dentistry, Queen Mary University of London, London, UK.
Menazir ShaMedical School, University College London, London, UK.
Basir KunduziGuy's Hospital, Renal Transplant Unit, London, UK.
Farid FroghiDepartment of HPB & Liver Transplantation, Royal Free Hospital, Pond St, Hampstead, NW3 2QG, London, UK. farid.froghi@nhs.net.
Saad RehmanUpper GI & Bariatric Unit, Royal Shrewsbury Hospital, Shrewsbury, UK.
Saied FroghiDepartment of HPB & Liver Transplantation, Royal Free Hospital, Pond St, Hampstead, NW3 2QG, London, UK. sidfrg@doctors.org.uk.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-5152-6297

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe learning curve of new surgical procedures has implications for the education, evaluation and subsequent adoption. There is currently no standardised surgical training for those willing to make their first attempts at minimally invasive pancreatic surgery. This study aims to ascertain the learning curve in minimally invasive pancreatic surgery.

methodsA systematic search of PubMed, Embase and Web of Science was performed up to March 2021. Studies investigating the number of cases needed to achieve author-declared competency in minimally invasive pancreatic surgery were included.

resultsIn total, 31 original studies fulfilled the inclusion criteria with 2682 patient outcomes being analysed. From these studies, the median learning curve for distal pancreatectomy was reported to have been achieved in 17 cases (10-30) and 23.5 cases (7-40) for laparoscopic and robotic approach respectively. The median learning curve for pancreaticoduodenectomy was reported to have been achieved at 30 cases (4-60) and 36.5 cases (20-80) for a laparoscopic and robotic approach respectively. Mean operative times and estimated blood loss improved in all four surgical procedural groups. Heterogeneity was demonstrated when factoring in the level of surgeon's experience and patient's demographic.

conclusionsThere is currently no gold standard in the evaluation of a learning curve. As a result, derivations are difficult to utilise clinically. Existing literature can serve as a guide for current trainees. More work needs to be done to standardise learning curve assessment in a patient-centred manner.

Indexed as

LaparoscopyRobotic Surgical ProceduresHumansLearning CurveMinimally Invasive Surgical ProceduresPancreasPancreatectomyPancreaticoduodenectomyLaparoscopicLearning curveMinimally invasive surgeryPancreatic surgeryRoboticTraining

Identifiers

PMID35278112
PMCPMC9467952

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.